tv Charlie Rose PBS September 28, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> welcome to the program, charlie rose is on a seenment. tontd we bring you charlie's interview with ruth bader gnsburg shot on location at the 92nd street y. >> that was the easy job, to get rid of the, this is the way women are, this the is way men are. the whole separate spheres mentality that ran all through the law, that the man was the brad winner who counted, if the woman worked she was just a pin money earner. her responsibility was the home and children. the roles were arranged that way. and that's what we wanted to break down. the idea was people should be free to be you and me. to develop their own talents, as
far as their hard work could take them. and not be held back by artificial barriers. >> also here is a preview of charlie's interview that took place earlier today, that interview will air tomorrow. >> so i want to talk about you and me first with the american secretary of state rex tillerson. what did you talk about? what was the tone and substance of that conversation. >> it was a-- (laughter) set the bar to be very low, just not-- so that, we certainly achieved that. we didn't throw shoes at each other. everybody in the group, because people need to be reminded that
this was not about-- this was a multilateral agreement and the meeting took place in the-- room of the security council. where we started the process four years ago as was just mentioned with secretary kerry, and it was a good reminder that this was not a treaty, it's not a bilateral agreement but a multilateral agreement which means ratification by u.s. senate and security council reslation and we were sitting in the informal consultation room of the security council where these resolutions are worked out usually. this one was not worked out in that womb. it was worked out during two years of tedious negotiations in vienna, and prior to that ten years of basically posturing. i'm sorry to see we are going back to the posturing of
prenegotiation posturing. everybody in the room reminded secretary tillerson that this was a good deal. a good deal,-- one side of the deal would be disaster for the other side. >> it cannot be a zero sum deal. it has to be a positive sum gleel deal. and we decided to define the objective in the beginning of the process in a meaning of resolution. >> ruth ruth bader ginsburg fore hour next. >> rose: funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: bank of america, life better connected. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and
information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: welcome to the 92nd street y. there are many things we'll try to fill in about her buy graph kal data, you know and we begin with the fact that she was appointed to the supreme court in 1993 by president clinton, and has served there. but she came to the court with a distinguished career as a professor, as an appeals court judge, and as a litigator. she was a great, great trial lawyer. and she has distinguished herself. >> appellate lawyer. >> rose: not trial, you are a teacher also, correcting me so early. (laughter) so let's just begin by talking about, i know you can't talk about specifics of cases but you have said that this session of
the court which begins on the first monday in october, october 2nd is going to be a momentous year. >> yes. (laughter). >> rose: why is that. this is not a yes and no. why? what is coming before the court in a country that has learned to respect the court so much? probably more so than the other two branches of government, i might say. (applause) >> that's because we know how to disagree with our being disagreeable. >> rose: that's the quality of the court and not the quality of the country right now. so what is on our calender. >> rose: you got redistricting, are you going to tackle redistricting. >> it is drawing a map so people think why bother voting, this is
a security republican district or this is a secure democratic district, so my vote doesn't count. that's not a good thing for democracy. >> rose: what else is coming up this year? >> i think the case that has gotten the most attention is the bakers case. >> rose: tell them about that. >> this is about-- . >> rose: about a wedding. >> a baker in colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. his view was i will sell them my ordinary cakes, i will sell them my cookies, but i will not create a wedding cake for them because that involves expression. i'm kind of an artist. and when i make a cake for a wedding, i am creating something. and this is against my religious
beliefs. so it's a clash between antidiscrimination on the one hand, the colorado commission on human rights, say sorry, if you want to be in business and sell things to people, you can't distinguish among customers. and then his side is religious freedom claim. >> rose: when did you fall in love with the law? >> when did i? >> rose: yeah. you've lived your life in the law. you were married to a lawyer. >> when i married my dear marty, neither of us were lawyers. i say it was in the early '50s when i was a student at cornell. my first idea was to be a high school history teacher. and that was a job where women were welcomed.
but then in the '50s, were bad times for the united states. there was a huge scare in the country. >> rose: mccarth are carthiism was running. >> yes. i worked for a teacher of constitutional law who pointed out to me that the senate investigating committee, the house on american activities committee were hauling people before the committee and quizzing them about their associations at the height of the depression in the 30see. there were lawyers standing up for these people and explaining to the members of the congressional committees, our constitution has a first amendment that says people have the right to think, speak and write as they believe. and not as big brother or
government tells them is the right way to think, speak and write. and also we have a fifth amendment that protects us against self-incrimination. so i got the idea that being a lawyer is a pretty nifty thing. >> rose: turned out well for you. and you went to law school, went to harvard. >> yes, my degree is from columbia. >> rose: i know, we're going to get to that story. you got ahead of me. you went to harvard law school and then you moved back to new york to columbia and finished at columbia. took courses at columbia. later you wanted to get your degree from harvard. and they wanted to give you, later, even later, the law
school because the dean now in fact one of your fellow justices, justice kagan. and you turned it down. you didn't want an honorary degree from the law school. this is the spirit this person has. you wanted an honorary degree from the university itself. >> yeah. i had a very sage counselor in that request. that was my husband. when elana kagan became between of the harvard law school, she called and said ruth, we would love to you have a harvard law school degree and marty said hold out for an honorary degree from the university. which i got in the year 2011, sadly the year after he died. >> rose: it was a fabulous marriage. >> yes. (laughter) >> well, marty-- . >> rose: because he did the
cooking. >> in the beginning, he was the company and the weekend cook. i was never permitted to cook for company. and then my daughter jane who is in the audience tonight, when she was in high school, figured out that daddy's cooking was ever so much better than mommies. so why should daddy be just the weekend and company cook. so i was phased out of the kitchen and since 1980, have i not made a meal. >> not one. (applause). >> rose: that's 37 years. >> so what happened after marty died in 2010. jane who was responsible for phasing me out of the kitchen,
she comes periodically to d.c., spends all day cooking, puts individual dinner in my freezer. (laughter). >> rose: you don't like for me to say this and you have said to me before, but you are considered with respect to women's rights, the thur good marshal of fem nism. (applause) anybody who knows about the history of the legal battles believes that. but you have been very reticent of that comparison. >> yes, it's not an apt comparison because whatever i did, oh, i should say we copied thur good marshall's technique and that is making building blocks and not asking the court to take a giant step, so thurgood marshall would say to court, separate but equal is not
before the house today. these facilities are vastly unequal. and won his cases that way, until he was able to say, now we can see that enforced separation of the races can never be equal. so we took that measured approach, building step-by-step. we copied that from him. but the enormous difference is when thurgood marshall came to a southern town to defend someone, he didn't know if he would be alive at the end of the day. >> rose: and you didn't face that. >> yes. >> rose: but you have called yourself, and others have, a ferocious feminist litigator. >> a flaming-- . >> rose: a flaming. and so when they say notorious rbg, do you like that? >> my clerks ask me do you know where that comes from.
i said yes, i have heard of the notorious big. >> rose: right. >> and it seems all together natural because we have one very important thing in common. notorious big and me. >> rose: which is? >> we were both born and bread in brooklyn, new york. (applause). >> rose: so you know something about the notorious big. >> yes, he died young. >> rose: yeah, he did. he did. but you've also got a new book coming out or your trainer has a book, which is it, the trainer or you. >> brian rob son called the rbg workout. >> rose: and what is your workout habit. >> what is my workout habit? >> rose: yeah, is it every day, every other day. >> twice a week. >> rose: what do you do? >> it started in 1999. it was the year of my bout with colorectal cancer so i had
massive surgery. and nine months of chem therapy. six weeks of daily radiation and when i finished that trying time, my husband said ruth you look like a survivor of auschwitz-- auschwitz, you've got to do something to build you up. so i asked around town and the federal district court judge gladys kesler said i have a great trainer, he has trained a lot of the district court judges. you will like him. and that was bryant. >> rose: bryant johnson. >> he has been with me since 1999. we meet twice a week from 7-8 so i can watch the news ddz hour-- fushour. and he has brought me up from relatively easy beginning to the push-ups and the planks. >> rose: you do planks. >> yes. front and side. >> rose: really.
>> rose: adam liptack said to me that you are probably the most outspoken member of the court. do you enjoy that too? i mean you were out there, sometimes pulling back where you feel like you may have gone too far. >> well, i would dispute adam liptack's label. i would say this. my good friend antonin scalia. >> rose: was more outspoken. >> yes. >> rose: tell us about the friendship. you both loved opera. >> yes. >> rose: you had a different-- you had a different look in terms of how do you interpret the constitution, yes? >> yes. >> rose: but the friendship transcended any differences. and you have told me before what
a loss it was for you personally. >> yes. there will be a book of his, of just is scalia's speeches out in october. it was put together by two of his sons and a former law clerk. i wrote the sproa duction to the book well, i loved him particularly because he was a very funny fellow. and in the days when we were buddies on the d.c. circuit where the bunch was only three judges, he could say something, whisper something to me and it would be so outrageous, all i could do to avoid bursting out laughing, i had to pinch myself. and then on the court when we were separated by several seats he would pass notes to me.
>> rose: what do you think of your new colleague justice gorsuch? >> justice gorsuch is very affable, very bright. i first encountered him, although i can't say i recall him in particular but he was a law clerk on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. >> rose: right. >> i do remember him from the next year when i succeeded buy ron white and byron engaged neil. he was from colorado and neil from colorado to be his law clerk. but byron white was no longer sitting on the court. he shared neil with justice kennedy. so that was my first meeting with my now colleague.
we were together on an exchange with injurists from england. and we did a paper together for that conference. >> rose: let's look back at the career, not only in terms of the justices that you have known but when you look back, what is the most important majority opinion you have written for you? >> oh, that's like asking me-- . >> rose: which child you like best. >> four grand children and two step grand children, is my favorite. >> rose: you feel strongly that some of have been enormously significant. >> yes. >> well, i would say majority opinions, the virginia military institute case last winter i went to vmi to celebrate the 20th anniversary of that decision. and it was a joy to see how well
it has worked out they are very proud of their women cadets, these are women who want to be engineers, nuclear scientists, they have women on the faculty now. on their board of directors and the general with the agreement of his faculty told me it's a much better place. >> rose: since you have been a fighter in the trenches for women's rights, measure how far we have come and now how far we have to go how far we have come, well, we are just about finished with over gender barriers in the law. in the decade-- . >> rose: that's part of your own accomplishment. >> yes. well, that was the easy job, to get rid of the, this is the way
women are, this is the way men are. the whole separate spheres mentality that ran all through the law. that the man was the bread winner who counted, if the woman worked she was just a pin money earner. her responsibility was the home and children. the rolls were arranged that way. and that's what we wanted to break down. the idea was people should be free to be you and me. to develop their own talents. as far as their hard work could take them. and not be held back by ard figure barriers. think how it was in the '60s. there were no women in policing, there were no women firefighters. states had rules that women couldn't work at night. which meant if you were, let's say you were a server at a banquet, well, you get the best
tips at night, not in the afternoon. so there were, there were so many distinctioning that made no sense with the way people lived today. so i would say that in the beginning of the '70s it was still closed door era. these doors are closed to women. and now the doors are open, if they're shut they are violating title 7, our principle, antidiscrimination in employment law. what remains is the, what's often called unconscious bias. >> rose: right. and racism called implicit racism. >> yes. >> rose: and what is that? just simply a kind of sexism that exists within, without people knowing it?
that they exercise a kind of unconscious discrimination? >> it's not deliberate. there was a title seven case that i think was a very good illustration. it was the case of the late '70s. it was about promoting women. it was against at&t and it was about promoting women to middle management jobs. so the women did very well, at least as well as the men up until the last test which was called a total person test. and what was the total person test? it was an interviewer sitting with a candidate for promotion, and having a conversation like we're having a conversation. if the interviewer faced someone who looked like him, there was a certain comfort level. he felt at ease but if he's
confronting someone of a different gender, of a different race he's a little uneasy. he doesn't quite know who this person is. he feels strange, uncomfortable. so at that last step, the total person test, the women dropped out disproportionately. and it wasn't because the interviewer deliberately engaged in discrimination. >> rose: simply felt uncomfortable. >> yes. and i think the best illustration of that unconscious bias is what happened to symphony orchestras across america. when i was growing up i never saw a woman in the orchestra except perhaps the harp player.
howard tawbman who was the critic for "the new york times," very distinguished music critic swor that he could tell the difference between a woman and a man playing the violin, playing the piano. so some people decided let's put him to the test. let's blindfold him. >> rose: yes. >> well, he flunked the blindfold test. he was all mixed up. he called that is definitely a man, no, it's a woman. then someone came up with the brilliant idea why don't we drop a curtain at the auditions so the people who are doing the judging won't see the person who
is auditioning. and with that simple device, the dropped curtain, women began to show up in numbers. no longer one at a time curiosity. now we can't duplicate that dropped curtain. >> rose: did you once say something like the answer to some question was nine women on the supreme court? >> i was asked well now you have three, when will there be enough. >> rose: and you said nine. (applause) so what do we need? i mean is it cultural now? so what do we need to break down the remaining sub conscience or unconscious barriers. >> for one thing, the more women there are, and this isn't making places, the more women will enter as those fields. >> rose: do you believe that your life will primarily when they come to write about you, and they are already writing
about you but you are still on the court and you still face, as you have said, momentous questions, that you will be one of the nine justices that speak to, but that in the end no matter what you do on the court t is your lifelong battle for femnism for women's rights that has di fined your life and will put you, and that's what we will most appreciate about your life? not a decision you have contributed to, but a lifelong commitment to women's equality? >> i hope so. but think of the tremendous fortune i had because i was alive and a lawyer in the '70s, when it became possible for change to occur. up until 1970 it was hopeless. in the turning point gender
discrimination case, the aclu knew it would be the turning point case, we put on the brief the names of two women, dorothy and pauly mary because these were the women who were saying the same things that we said at a time when society was not prepared to listen. one of dorothy's missions was to put women on juries in every state in the country. young people today would be astonished. >> rose: that there were no women jurors. >> that women were not serving on juries. and pauly murray was a woman way ahead of her time. both with respect to race discrimination and gender discrimination. >> rose: when do you think we will have a women as president. >> when do i think? >> rose: uh-huh. >> well, we came pretty close. >> rose: do you think sexism played a role in that came pain?
>> do i think so? >> rose: yes. >> i have no doubt that it did. (applause). >> rose: do you think it was decisive. >> that it was-- . >> rose: decisive, in other words f hillary clinton had been a man she would have won that election. >> there are so many things that might have been decisive but that was a major, major fact, factor. i think. i find hopeful is remembering back to my earliest years on the court when the women in the senate and the women at the court in those days it was sandra day o'connor and me, med every year. we would have dinner together the women in the senate would hold the dinner one year, we would at the court the next year. it was six women in the senate then.
and now we have seen the numbers grow, not nearly enough but it's quite a different scene. so the more women that are out there doing things, and the more people see that women are not all alike. i mean we come in all sizes and shapes. so that to me, to see the entrance of women, into places where they were not there before is a hopeful sign. >> rose: tell me what you worry about when you think about our country today. >> well, i just hope that we will stay in tune with our most basic values. >> rose: do you wore eye that we're not? >> the united states has always
had a tension between-- . >> rose: tension. >> between our gleel for liberty and our concern with security. other countries have faced that even to a greater extent, israel is one. in was a very wise former chief justice of the supreme court of israel who said we could give our enemy no greater gift than if we allow our concern for security to so overwhelm us that we become, we come to resemble our enemy. >> rose: we become a closed society. >> yes. that more and more. we su renner-- sur ender what makes us proud, what makes us
free. >> rose: so we build walls and we try to keep people out. >> but this is not something new in the united states. think of what happened in world war ii. when people of japanese ancest ree were taken from their homes, put in detention camps, for no reason other than-- . >> rose: fear. >> yes, yeah. or in building-- going back very early in the history of our country, the alien is i digs act, i think it was adams administration. >> rose: i'm asking you right now in 2017, in september of 2017, you were genuinely worried that in the interest of security, we may be trampling on individual liberties. >> am i worried? >> rose: yes. >> yes, but i am also encouraged
by the number of people, especially young people, who don't want this to happen and are expecting themselve themselves-- expressing themselves in opposition. reminding us, as i said earlier in our conversation about the '50s. reminding us of our most basic values, our freedom. and if we surrender that, then we really are in distinguishable. >> rose: what is the strength of the country that you believe. you sit there on the supreme court as one of nine people, and the constitution and the bill of rights are the strength of this country, our values are t the strength of this country. >> do you know the song balance add for america. >> yes. >> rose: there is a line in it, the right to speak-- that is america to me.
the other is the diversity of our country. this was brought home to me in the '60s when i was-- i was often off in sweden for four months. my first subway ride when i came back to new york. and i looked at the people in that car, and from every race, every region of the world, show we have been able to be many and yet one in our attachment to freedom and liberty. when i grew up i memorized-- lazarus poem on the statue of liberty. this country was a country, all of us except native americans,
have an origin some place else. so and there isn't any other country that has that. we're where people came here seeking freedom, economic well-being, yes. >> rose: freedom from religious persecution, freedom from totalitarianism. >> and that is bla the land of liberty is. it's a land that welcomes people who were living under conditions of oppression. >> rose: you're going to have to consider, tell me where the travel ban is now. because i think the court-- you have sent it back to, because they have changed the travel ban. they added new states. and so exactly what. >> we didn't-- what we did, the travel ban we have had has
expired. >> rose: right. >> it's no longer the law. so the court issued an order to have both sides file briefs on the question whether this case is now dead. there is a new travel ban different than the one before us. so we have taken it off the calender, pending what the parties tell us, whether the parties-- what they think about whether the case is still alive or that it controversy is over because that ban is no longer in effect. >> so we don't know yet whether that in fact will come back to the court. >> we will get the parties views on whether the case is-- live and based on those decisions we will reach a decision. >> one of the interesting
things, we have this impression, if you haven't been to washington, i'm sure everybody here has, to go to the supreme court and to walk in the supreme court and see that great statue of john marshal. >> yes, in the great hall. >> in the great hall. and you know, you can go and you can watch the justices as they listen to the attorneys argue a case. but there are lots ofism pretion of the court. for example you have said to me before, you know, there are a lot of things the court agrees on. the number of things that they have these spirited, important constitutional debates on is only a small part of what you do. >> yes. >> and a lot that comes before you nine justices agree. >> last term fully half of the decisions were unanimous. and i think there were under ten where we divided 5-3 most of the
time last year. >> under ten in which you divided 5-3. >> it's usually the shop disagreement, the 5-4 decisions runs about 20% in typical terms. >> how did the court change when sandra day o'connor left? it was an enormous change. >> i know, you have spoken to me about it, explain to me. >> i did the simplest way to put it is to say when she left, every decision that came out, that term where i was one of four, if she had remained i would have been one of five. her retirement was a major, major change.
>> because she was a swing justice. >> she was and she was comfortable in that position. some people are indi vicive. she was not. >> an nor are you. >> justice kennedy now has that role. >> yes, in most cases when we divide 5-4. >> it gives you huge power, doesn't it. >> also an awesome responsibility. >> rose: you made a surprise peach, you were the surprise speaker at a jewish new area's service. during the services for telling worshipers that you believe being jewish helped you empathize, helped you empathize which is a great quality, i think, empathy. being jewish helped you empathize with other minority groups, explain. >> yes, well, if you were the
outsider, you belonged to a group that was cordoned off, lived in ghettos, were in constant fear of what the state might do. and this was brought home to me powerfully by being a child brought up in world war ii years. and so if you come from a group with a history of oppression, of minority status and you were empathetic to others who were outsiders,. >> you are now the longest serving jewish member of the court. >> yes, yes. people have been asking me now for some time, my next birthday,
i will be 85. >> 85. >> all right. >> and might we say a healthy 85 because of bryant johnson. but it started i guess when i turned 70. when are you going to step down. so i had a spot answer. said just is brand east was appointed when he was the same age i was when he was appointed. we were both 70-- 60. he was on the court for 23 years. i expect to stay at least as long as justice brandies. now i am about two years passed. >> so what is the new standard? >> so now my answer is i will remain in this good job as long
as i can do it full team. >> and we hope for a long time. (applause) >> but. >> you are 84 justice brian who i viewed on this stage is 79-80. >> 79. >> so donald trump may have the chance, may, you keep up the exercise, okay? >> just is breyer is also using bryant johnson. >> rose: so the future of the country is in bryant johnson's hands. you go out there and you buy that book, okay. >> rose: aslong as you feel like are you doing the job that president clinton asked to you do when he appointed you you
will be right there on your seat. >> like justice john paul stevens. he stepped down when he was 90 soo you got five years at least, that will take you through another presidential election. >> and he was-- (applause) >> he was swift in getting out his opinions. since he stepped down from the court he has published two books and is well on his way to completing the third. >> all right. listen, i'm with you, for goodness sakes i'm with you. i think the word retirement is an awful word. jus tises suit-- justice suiter who has left the court but is still alive said the first year on the job is like walking into a tiedal wave. did you feel any of that. >> walking too a.
>> a tidal wave. >> i had the advantage of. >> having served. >> and served not only in the federal court but in the company town, in washington d.c. >> right. >> the u.s. courthouse is just a few blocks down. >> and it is a breeding ground for supreme court justices. >> it is. >> justice thomas, justice scalia, and i. >> throughout history it has been an important place. >> yes, tbaws is the one u.s. court of appeals that has the nationwide draw. after the civil war, lincoln disbanded what was the then court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. because he thought that they were all southern sim pathizers. why he said should the court of appeals in the nation's capitol have a bunch of southerners. the draw should be from across the country.
so the dc circuit is the one circuit where nominees can come from any place. and the other circuits, the regional skirts, the nominees come from that area, from those states. >> do you take great pride in the supreme court in terms of decisions on marriage equality? >> do i take great pride? it is the court doing the job that the constitution assigned. >> rose: you know what i am asking. >> this was something you believed in. the issues presented by that case spoke to your own philosophy of individuals. >> the case never would have come out the way it did if every day people dispt begin to care. and i think that this change
came about because gay people who were once in the clogs et-- closet afraid to say who they were, came out of the closet and said this is who i am and i'm proud of it. and then we looked around. and who were they? they were on our next door neighbor, our child's best friend. it wasn't the kind of we they that has plagued racial discrimination for people who live in areas that are segregated, even today. so that didn't exist once people were willing to say this is who i am. and i'm proud of it. and if that hadn't happened, we never would have seen. the court is never in the vanguard of change. people had to change.
attitudes had to change. when chief justice rehnquist engaged a woman as his administrative assistant who was a lesbian, open about it, her partner came to court functions, that was, i think, a signal that things were really changing. attitudes were changing in the country. >> rose: when you look forward to-- what brings you great satisfaction beyond the law? beyond sitting on the court, and i should say beyond family which has been so important. you have made the case and made the statement more than once that you had-- you had the great pleasure of being married to a man and being of the conviction yourself that you could have a great job, have a great family, have great children. you didn't have to make
sacrifices of any of those things to have a complete life. >> and i am very sad when i hear people say to climb to the top of the tree in the legal profession, you have to relinquish home and family life. and i wonder at that first woman appointed to the supreme court sandra day o'connor has three sons. and i have two children it should not be any-- it should not be any less possible for a woman than for a man. but it takes a sim pathetic partner. it takes a partner who thinks that what you do is as important as what he does. >> rose: and marty thought that. >> he was extraordinary in that way. he had such complete confidence
in himself that he thought well, if i want to spend my life with her, she's got to be pretty terrific. loof (laughter). >> rose: a pretty good tax lauer too, wasn't he. >> yeah, the best in america. (laughter) you're not the only person that thought that. >> marty is the supreme chef. is he the best-- selling book in the supreme court gift shop. when he died. >> rose: the supreme chef s that what his tight sell. >> supreme chef, a election of-- . >> rose: his recipes. >> his recipes. marty was very popular with the supreme court spouses. they met quarterly for lunch. and they rotated catering responsibilities. and marty was always the number one picked to be cocaterrer.
>> rose: it just goes on and on, folks, i'm telling you. i've been in her office. so when were you given an honorary degrea at columbia, was it columbia, i think, and you were sang to on his knee, was it columbia? >> oh, no, that was-- . >> rose: was that harvard. >> yes, the famous serenade. >> rose: tell the story. >> so i get the list of norees. >> rose: honorary degree at harvard. this is the one they gave you because you refused to be given an honorary degree from the law school, insisted it had to be the whole university. the university cappity lated and gave you an honorary degree and among the people there was the great opera singer. >> and they didn't propose to gree that i should havethe, they gotten.
>> rose: that's right. >> when i spent two years at harvard. anyway, so i know that i'm going to sit next to practices i hado domingo because they range us in alphabetical order. but hi no idea that he was going to get up and serenade me. >> rose: exactly. >> at this graduation. the students had written lyrics to-- aida. and this is a wonderful picture, you saw it in my chambers. you might call it woman in ecstasy. (laughter). >> rose: was it him or the music that did it for you? >> to be so close to that magnificent. >> rose: voice. >> yes. it was like-- it really was like an electric current. >> rose: what? >> it was like an electric current. >> rose: really? >> electric current that ran
through your body. >> yes. >> rose: oh my goodness, my goodness. he probably felt the same thing, i assume. you know, that's what we call magic, right? >> it was, it was a magical moment. it was. >> rose: well, you know, you have to treasure those moments. but you have said, to your husband marty you said i betray no secret in reporting. i love law. i betray no secret in reporting that without marty i would not have gained a seat on the supreme court. you said that. >> yes. >> rose: without him. >> absolutely right. >> rose: because of the kind of life he enabled you to lead so that you could be who you wanted to be. >> yes. and he was remarkable. i said many times, in the 19 '50s, i went to cornell university, cornell university had a 4-1 ratio, four man to
every woman it was a favorite school for parents of daughters because if you couldn't find your man at cornell you were hopeless. >> rose: we are just getting warmed up, boys and girls. so i never met a boy who cared at all that i had a brain. that's not what me were interested in. and here was marty. we-- . >> rose: at first sight. >> at first sight, not exactly. (laughter). >> rose: but it is a gift to have a long and great marriage. >> 56 years. >> rose: 50. >> 56. >> rose: he died in 2010. >> yes. >> rose: and. >> but he really cheated death
because he had a cancer when he was a young man in his third year in law school. >> rose: and what did you do, and as i remember it, there was a special tri beutd from the court too, was there not, in some way, the justices? >> we had a memorial, a celebration of marty's life at the court. but the lasting tribute is supreme chef, the cook book. >> rose: yeah. >> the wife of justice---- said the perfect tribute to marty will be a book of his recipes. >> rose: finally i say to this audience and having done this for so long with great pride to come here into this place n this auditorium, it is with great pride that i come here this evening as we celebrate one of our own, a new yorker who has
>> announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ >> must have soup! >> the pancake is to die for! [ laughs ] >> it was a gut-bomb, but i liked it. >> good. i actually fantasize, in private moments, about the food i had. >> i didn't like it. >> you didn't like it? oh, okay. >> dining here makes me feel rich. >> and what about dessert? pecan pie, sweet potato pie.